On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 22:11:25 +0100 Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 12:48:37PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > ValleyView handles force wake differently than previous chipsets, so add > > a couple of new functions for it. > > > > But it's also untested, so no need to call these untested functions yet. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes at virtuousgeek.org> > > So we have forcewake but we don't need forcewak?! Can you explain how this > works for dense me a bit? We need force wake, just not for any parts I've tested yet (the early ones had the Punit disabled). This code adheres to the spec, but I'll need a part with the Punit enabled in order to test & verify. Until then we can leave it disabled. -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/attachments/20120321/4c96f20f/attachment-0001.pgp>
